SCOTUS Protection Request

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

Very true.

Why should they step down or retire? They simply made a ruling you disagree with. Oh well.

Nope. It's been a steady string of bad rulings. But the Roe one was the one that exposed their lies and perjury in their confirmation hearings, because they said they would uphold it, that it was the law of the land, that no judge should overturn it, that it was settled law, that it was an important precedent, that it should be respected et cetera et cetera et cetera. When they ruled against it, that showed they LIED.

Talk about "oh it's just one decision you disagree with" and you show us all you are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, you are saying that *certain justices* should not have protections right? You are not advocating for any principle that says supreme court justices in general do not require protection, correct?

What that boils down to is that you disagree with their decisions on particular cases and are vengeful.

Look, that is fine. But let's just call it what it is.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

"Particular cases?" Stuff it. At this point it's painfully clear that they aren't even legitimate and shouldn't be hearing or deciding ANY cases. They dishonestly got their seats through lying and deceit and should be impeached for it. And given the magnitude of such an egregious breach you should be angry too.

For anyone concerned about their safety, impeaching these clearly illegitimate, unfit Justices for perjury and removing them from the court would be a step in the right direction where it comes to restoring trust and accountability in the Supreme Court.

"They're clearly illegitimate and unfit because they didn't vote the way I wanted (and expected) them to!" I imagine your entire life has been filled with these tantrums, over one thing or another.

You completely fail at reading comprehension.

They are illegitimate and unfit because THEY LIED UNDER OATH in the process of gaining their seats.

Except they did not lie - reputable sources have stated as much. You simply like to parse their words and take them out of context to try and convince yourself (and others) that they did lie. But they didn't. Life must be difficult for you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know- if they retire and step down, the protesting will stop.

Just sayin.’

Very true.

Why should they step down or retire? They simply made a ruling you disagree with. Oh well.

Nope. It's been a steady string of bad rulings. But the Roe one was the one that exposed their lies and perjury in their confirmation hearings, because they said they would uphold it, that it was the law of the land, that no judge should overturn it, that it was settled law, that it was an important precedent, that it should be respected et cetera et cetera et cetera. When they ruled against it, that showed they LIED.

Talk about "oh it's just one decision you disagree with" and you show us all you are clueless and have no idea what you're talking about.

Yawn. "Bad" rulings = rulings you disagree with. "Good" rulings = rulings you agree with. For instance, I'm sure you're happy as a clam re: the recent ruling allowing Biden to end Remain in Mexico (MPP). I, however, am not. I won't be protesting in the streets or threatening justices because I disagree with their ruling, however. That would be something clueless people, like you, would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, you are saying that *certain justices* should not have protections right? You are not advocating for any principle that says supreme court justices in general do not require protection, correct?

What that boils down to is that you disagree with their decisions on particular cases and are vengeful.

Look, that is fine. But let's just call it what it is.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

"Particular cases?" Stuff it. At this point it's painfully clear that they aren't even legitimate and shouldn't be hearing or deciding ANY cases. They dishonestly got their seats through lying and deceit and should be impeached for it. And given the magnitude of such an egregious breach you should be angry too.

For anyone concerned about their safety, impeaching these clearly illegitimate, unfit Justices for perjury and removing them from the court would be a step in the right direction where it comes to restoring trust and accountability in the Supreme Court.

"They're clearly illegitimate and unfit because they didn't vote the way I wanted (and expected) them to!" I imagine your entire life has been filled with these tantrums, over one thing or another.

You completely fail at reading comprehension.

They are illegitimate and unfit because THEY LIED UNDER OATH in the process of gaining their seats.

Except they did not lie - reputable sources have stated as much. You simply like to parse their words and take them out of context to try and convince yourself (and others) that they did lie. But they didn't. Life must be difficult for you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

I watched and rewatched the videos for myself.
THEY. DID. LIE.

And as kid-glove as your fact checks are, they still admit there was deception and dishonesty, which still makes them unfit and still remains at the root of their perjury.

You trying to claim anything less makes you dishonest as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to be clear, you are saying that *certain justices* should not have protections right? You are not advocating for any principle that says supreme court justices in general do not require protection, correct?

What that boils down to is that you disagree with their decisions on particular cases and are vengeful.

Look, that is fine. But let's just call it what it is.

Precisely this. Totally expected, coming from Democrats.

"Particular cases?" Stuff it. At this point it's painfully clear that they aren't even legitimate and shouldn't be hearing or deciding ANY cases. They dishonestly got their seats through lying and deceit and should be impeached for it. And given the magnitude of such an egregious breach you should be angry too.

For anyone concerned about their safety, impeaching these clearly illegitimate, unfit Justices for perjury and removing them from the court would be a step in the right direction where it comes to restoring trust and accountability in the Supreme Court.

"They're clearly illegitimate and unfit because they didn't vote the way I wanted (and expected) them to!" I imagine your entire life has been filled with these tantrums, over one thing or another.

You completely fail at reading comprehension.

They are illegitimate and unfit because THEY LIED UNDER OATH in the process of gaining their seats.

Except they did not lie - reputable sources have stated as much. You simply like to parse their words and take them out of context to try and convince yourself (and others) that they did lie. But they didn't. Life must be difficult for you.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lying-gop-roe-wade-supreme-court/

I watched and rewatched the videos for myself.
THEY. DID. LIE.

And as kid-glove as your fact checks are, they still admit there was deception and dishonesty, which still makes them unfit and still remains at the root of their perjury.

You trying to claim anything less makes you dishonest as well.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about this - which I'm sure you currently are. No matter. They didn't lie and multiple sources (not just the two I listed) have stated as much. You clearly don't speak legalese. Have a good night and try not to gnash your teeth too much.

[Anonymous]

"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

[Anonymous]

"Carefully worded" deception is how you win a battle but later on lose the much bigger war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

"should be afforded the weight that that carries" - the leak showed they barely gave it any weight at all. They already had that decision in the can. They lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Carefully worded" deception is how you win a battle but later on lose the much bigger war.

+1
We’re at a crossroads. Do people want the christofascism the GOP and their deep pocket donors are forcing on us, or do we actually want to work to a better America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

The intent was to deceive and illegitimately get seated on the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Once again, SCOTUS justices already have round the clock protection. They want protests outside their homes to stop. Not going to happen. They have already ruled these protests are covered under First Amendment. They should adhere to their own ruling even when it impacts them.

It is the right of every American to peaceful protest, especially high ranking government officials who drastically impact their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"A close examination of the carefully worded answers by the three Trump appointees, however, shows that while each acknowledged at their hearings that Roe was precedent, and should be afforded the weight that that carries, none specifically committed to refusing to consider overturning it."

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times. None of these justices lied.

What was the intended effect of their answers?

Both Manchin and Collins said they “misled” them, i.e. they lied.

[Anonymous]

Small government, says Republicans—unless they are scared and then it’s time for big government to protect them.

[Anonymous]

As much as I disagree with the protestors... scotus ruled this was okay. They ruled it was even okay for Westboro Baptist Church to picket and harrass families holding funerals for their sons and daughters who died at war.

It sucks, but, they made these rules themselves.